Talk:Oleg Sokolov

Suicide dressed as Suchet

I checked the sources list for the sentence and none of them supported the claim, as such I removed the citations. I could not find any paper or website supporting this claim, both in Dutch and English. Could someone find a source for this, possibly in Russian or French, or, if you also try and fail to do so, inform me here. Dorromikhal (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The IP who added it said he is a friend of Sokolov and this is apparently the only source of information. At this point, the info must be removed--Ymblanter (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

No objections. I linked Louis-Gabriel Suchet merely for historical accuracy. At least I now know it wasn't Hercule Poirot. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dorromikhal: Some of the russian language sources are talking about him wanting to die in Napoleon's uniform, see here. But nothing about Suchet specifically Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The Washington Post is somewhat more circumspect with "full Napoleonic costume" but then also says "His plan, local news organizations reported, was to make his way to the Peter and Paul Fortress on Sunday, dressed as Napoleon Bonaparte, to romantically take his own life in front of gaping and undoubtedly awestruck tourists." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The suicide dressed as Napoleon at Peter and Paul Fortress is also mentioned in russian language sources, I think the section with suchet sould be replaced with this cited to the washington post Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

About student and clothes iron

This information is only in this article from the newspaper "Moskovsky Komsomolets in St. Petersbourg" (Russian: Московский комсомолец в Санкт-Петербурге, МК в Питере). And other media could take it only from it. Especially BBC Russian Service wrote:

Ранее Соколова уже подозревали в насилии. Как писал в 2008 году "Московский комсомолец", студентка обращалась в полицию с заявлением о том, что "была избита своим любовником Соколовым О. В. на его съемной квартире". Дело не дошло до суда.

It should be noted that even here the BBC Russian Service managed to make a mistake, because an article in the newspaper was published in 2018, and not in 2008. Nothing is known about this student since her name and surname have been changed by the editors and are not verifiable. It is worth noting that the editor-in-chief of "Moskovsky Komsomolets in St. Petersburg" is Maxim Kuzakhmetov (English: Максим Кузахметов), who is also a supporter of Yevgeny Ponasenkov with whom Sokolov had a conflict before the famous tragic events, including court proceedings. All these things were discussed in Russian Wikipedia and if necessary, I can provide evidence, including translation into English. Tempus (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear colleague Tempus could not figure out the situation. The publication in the Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper was in 2018, but the incident occurred in 2008. If colleague Tempus looked at the date in a girl's statement published on the newspaper’s website, he could easily understand his mistake. [1] A renewed interest in the old story with Sokolov caused his conflict with Ponasenkov in 2018.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I used the word allegedly as such a claim is of course very hard, if not impossible, to verify, even for law enforcement. If someone claims to have been threatened you can’t just take the threat and study it for evidence. On the living person biography page linked by INDV Tempus gives as an example. “A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred.” In the case of the clothes iron claim it seems to me like such a situation, the article read, when the statement was deleted: “A year previously he had been accused of in 2008 tying a student to a chair and threatening to assault her with a clothes iron”. Which seems to be in line with the example given by INDV myself, form the Wikipedia: biography of living persons page, above. Multiple news sources have reported the claim, making it important enough to feature in the article. Even if these all cite/use the same source themselves, or cite/use sources that do in turn do so, which I don’t dispute but can’t confirm, this does not change anything about the nature of the situation regarding the article, there being an accusation that is reported upon by reliable news outlets (the Telegraaf and Washington Post both being reliable and popular news outlets). I don’t think verifiably, the claim not having to be confirmed, it just needing to be verifiable that there was such a claim, or original research will be an issue so I will immediately move on to the subject of (N)POV, which seems not to be disputed, which doesn’t withhold me from briefly touching upon it anyways (it might be disputed later on). The statement does not need to be objective but only has to be neutral, which I am pretty sure it was and would be if restored. In my opinion there is, as such, no ground not to mention the accusation in the article. You however, INDV fellow Wikipedian, might disagree, know of some policy or rule I don’t. Dorromikhal (talk) 09:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A translation from the Russian would be very useful. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Interfax:

According to media reports, the 63-year-old teacher at St. Petersburg State University, suspected of the brutal murder of a student, could have previously broken the law in relations with students.

In 2018, the Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper published a text of a statement to law enforcement bodies from Sokolov's student, in which she accused the teacher of brutal beating in 2008. Then Sokolov resigned from St. Petersburg State University and moved to Moscow, where he worked as a consultant for the collector of items from the Napoleon era, Viktor Baturin (brother of the wife of the former mayor of Moscow, Yuri Luzhkov).

According to the document, the student and the historian were in close relations. The incident occurred at the scientist’s rented Moscow apartment after the girl informed him of her intention to break up. In a statement, the student says that Sokolov, learning about her intention to leave him, began to insult her, tied her to a chair, beat her for an hour, threatened to mutilate her with a hot clothes iron, to kill her, and "bury the corpse at a nearby construction site" where "unlikely they will find it", "lifted her by the hair and by the ears with the chair", choked with a leather cord and let go only when she "began to suffocate and lose consciousness". In the document, the victim emphasizes that Sokolov had prepared for the crime in advance, his aim was to kill.

The material of MK notes that the case on this application did not reach the court.

[2]--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

"Works" section

I propose to delete or collapse this section, it is outsize for the article.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if there are any guidelines on this via WP:BLP. The fact it looks UNDUE suggests to me the article main body article might need to be larger. I guess works which are largely duplicated, across different publications, should be trimmed out. I'd suggest collapsing for now. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd suggest collapsing for now. - Well, I looked at the Wikipedia:Collapse, but did not understand how to do this correctly.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Does the article need a direct speech by a lawyer.

I removed this fragment from the article: "the defense version so far is based on the fact that Sokolov acted under some kind of strong factor, something strongly influenced him" and that "this could be a state of pathological intoxication or an irresistible impulse"

I think that WIKIVOICE should not affirm as a "fact" that Sokolov acted in a state of intoxication or so on. And in general, Wikipedia is not a QUOTEFARM and no need to remove attention from other information. If Tempus, the sock-master of two blocked accounts ([3], [4]), Ymblanter or someone else thinks that this fragment is necessary - please justify in this thread.--Nicoljaus (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia should not be reporting assertions by a defence lawyer as fact. What it should do however, if a proper source can be found, is inform its readers of what the defence is claiming, as a claim since it is clearly relevant if and when this comes to trial. I suspect the problem here is largely one of translation. I don't speak Russian, and nor am I familiar with Russian law, but if, as I think the source (the BBC Russian service) is suggesting, the defence intend to offer a plea of insanity or something similar, this should obviously be stated in the article. Not necessarily quoted (inadvisable if translated), but at least summarised. What do other (Russian language?) soulrces have to say on any possible defence? 86.141.208.224 (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, the last thing the BBC writes: "lawyer Alexander Pochuev has already stated that he will not insist on the version of the insanity of his client, because this will cast doubt on his scientific achievements (адвокат Александр Почуев уже заявил, что не будет настаивать на версии невменяемости своего подзащитного, потому что это поставит под сомнение его научные достижения) [5] I would say the lawyer is cheating, but this is his job. Just do not drag all his words into the article.--Nicoljaus (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a defence lawyer's job is to defend his client. And Wikipedia's job is to report accurately the relevant facts. Which include any defence being offered. And don't include your personal opinion of the lawyer. 86.141.208.224 (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Yesterday, the lawyer said one thing, today - another... I still do not see any defense position that could be cited as a "relevant facts."--Nicoljaus (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, your opinion as to the validity of any defence is irrelevant, and I would remind you that this is not a forum. If the defence lawyers are putting forward a defence, we should state what it is, and let our readers make their own minds up. 86.141.208.224 (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, not a forum, indeed. If you see here some relevant defence position, try to formulate it, as reliable secondary sources do.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)